Did you know that registration to Fighter Control is completely free and brings you lots of added features? Find out more....

RAF Mildenhall to close. Lakenheath to get F-35 by 2020

A forum for discussing all things related to MILITARY AVIATION including Military Aviation news. No off-topic discussions here please.
Locked
page_verify
Posts: 1640
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:19 pm

Re: RAF Mildenhall to close. Lakenheath to get F-35 by 2020

Post by page_verify » Thu Mar 02, 2017 8:38 am

Some people give the political decision makers and their process for managing their money a lot more credit than they're due! When a budget needs to be trimmed, a line with a running cost next to it gets picked - usually based just on the size of its running cost and advice from their teams. I'd be surprised if the people who decided to fund Waddington's work and close Mildenhall know that much about what the bases do on a day to day basis.

Agent K
Posts: 1264
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:50 am
Location: Nearby RAF Henlow, Bedfordshire

Re: RAF Mildenhall to close. Lakenheath to get F-35 by 2020

Post by Agent K » Thu Mar 02, 2017 8:54 am

page_verify wrote:Some people give the political decision makers and their process for managing their money a lot more credit than they're due! When a budget needs to be trimmed, a line with a running cost next to it gets picked - usually based just on the size of its running cost and advice from their teams. I'd be surprised if the people who decided to fund Waddington's work and close Mildenhall know that much about what the bases do on a day to day basis.
To the contrary, I think there's some highly qualified financial and strategic experts, and others, within their teams. The skill is to bring all those together and make decisions in an informed manner and within the constraints of the budgets made available to them, hence decisions sometimes going against the hopes of our community. At the end of the day there is a capability requirement and they will work to make that happen within the constraints of their financial and strategy framework.

Do those who fund Waddington and close Mildenhall really need to know what happens on a day to day basis? surely that is for the strategists and policy makers to ensure whatever that requirement is, is met.

Not to say, now and again the overall teams do make errors (Nimrod Mk 4 etc.)

Phoon
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:50 pm

Re: RAF Mildenhall to close. Lakenheath to get F-35 by 2020

Post by Phoon » Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:12 am

the concerned wrote:I'very been looking at this another way if Mildenhall does finally close the infrastructure in the area just doesn't support thousands of more houses. A better option would be to relocate Waddington as a whole to Mildenhall and use the land that Waddington is on to build extra houses outside Lincoln this could better support the extra housing. Maybe then the RAF could offer the Base as a joint hub. We have seen this time and time again you build these new estates then lots of people move there knowing damn well what the area is then they start complaining about the noisy aircraft in the area. This has not been thought through properly
Really, really wishful thinking I'm afraid. RAF Waddington has just had a lengthy and expensive upgrade, but more crucially it is within close proximity to RAF Digby which deals with much of the intelligence and data received by the Waddington units.

Reach1985
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:01 pm
Location: Norwich

Re: RAF Mildenhall to close. Lakenheath to get F-35 by 2020

Post by Reach1985 » Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:42 am

Slightly off topic - sorry - but continuing with a line of conversation in this thread. I did know that Bentwaters had a lot of money spent on it before it closed but I didnt realise it was specifically for F15 ops. Was the plan to close LN in that case and base the F15s at WR - what was the reason given in the end for not doing that?

User avatar
TankBuster
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:45 am
Location: Colchester

Re: RAF Mildenhall to close. Lakenheath to get F-35 by 2020

Post by TankBuster » Thu Mar 02, 2017 2:17 pm

Reach1985 wrote:Slightly off topic - sorry - but continuing with a line of conversation in this thread. I did know that Bentwaters had a lot of money spent on it before it closed but I didnt realise it was specifically for F15 ops. Was the plan to close LN in that case and base the F15s at WR - what was the reason given in the end for not doing that?
Yep, Bentwaters was scheduled to receive the F-15E's that eventually went to Lakenheath. I think it was only Bentwaters that would have received them and not Woodbridge. The A-10s were due to be retired and the 81st was to be re-equipped with F-15s, although I dont think they ever got as far as designating which squadrons they would go to.

Somewhere along the lines while the work was underway at Bentwaters upgrading the base a decision was made to base the F-15s at Lakenheath. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this decision was a political one heavily influenced by local pressure groups who objected to flight operations from Bentwaters.

If the F-15s had gone to Bentwaters then it would almost certainly have meant the end for Lakenheath!

TankBuster
And there's plenty more where that came from!

filmman
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:59 pm

Re: RAF Mildenhall to close. Lakenheath to get F-35 by 2020

Post by filmman » Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:31 pm

Waddington and Lakenheath/ Mildenhall are used by separate air forces who make their own decisions with regard to different factors. If Waddington's runway is too short the cheapest RAF option is to lengthen it. If the USAF decides that Lakenheath is not suitable for RC 135s they then have to decide whether to keep Mildenhall or move elsewhere; security being paramount. For the MOD accommodating USAF requirements at Waddington would be a priority if they could sell Mildenhall; however moving USAF housing could be a problem. A week is a long time in politics and a Trump USAF might now want to keep Mildenhall; at least until the next election (that's smart)!
Filmman

Reach1985
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:01 pm
Location: Norwich

Re: RAF Mildenhall to close. Lakenheath to get F-35 by 2020

Post by Reach1985 » Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:11 am

Thanks Tankbuster for the reply - that does ring a bell in terms of local pressure.

mushbuster
Posts: 539
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:34 pm
Location: South Gloucestershire

Re: RAF Mildenhall to close. Lakenheath to get F-35 by 2020

Post by mushbuster » Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:22 pm

filmman wrote:Waddington and Lakenheath/ Mildenhall are used by separate air forces who make their own decisions with regard to different factors. If Waddington's runway is too short the cheapest RAF option is to lengthen it. If the USAF decides that Lakenheath is not suitable for RC 135s they then have to decide whether to keep Mildenhall or move elsewhere; security being paramount. For the MOD accommodating USAF requirements at Waddington would be a priority if they could sell Mildenhall; however moving USAF housing could be a problem. A week is a long time in politics and a Trump USAF might now want to keep Mildenhall; at least until the next election (that's smart)!
Filmman
Filmman, the reason 100ARW Commander made his recent comments is because the cheapest/best option for the RAF jets is to go a base that USAF operates, presumably with better facilities/more money for running the site and probably a longer runway than Waddington. The runway length is after all more significant for the RAF as we do not have the capability of refuelling our own aircraft which is a critical shortfall if the runway length limits the aircraft take off/landing weight. A decision to close Mildenhall has already been announced, MOD have also announced their intention of selling the site off, if a move to Lakenheath is not approved then they will simply go somewhere else. Trump will go with what his senior military leadership ask him to do and it is unlikely the military rationale for closing Mildenhall is any different now as it was 2 years ago, although if Mr Putin makes a play to regain control of some of the Baltic states it might get interesting. With Trump it seems to be hot and cold on most things except he does not appear to wish to upset the Russians. As for housing the personnel I don't believe supporting the housing needs of a reported 400 personnel at any useable airfield is that much of a housing problem. Have to say the solutions to the RAF/USAF dilemma are pretty obvious in so many ways and for operational reasons has to be an easy decision, the question is why is it taking so long for it to be announced. A week is indeed a long time in politics, 2 years to announce an operating location would seem to be an age.

baz1
Posts: 6243
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:34 am
Location: lincoln between scampton and waddington

Re: RAF Mildenhall to close. Lakenheath to get F-35 by 2020

Post by baz1 » Sat Mar 04, 2017 8:52 pm

i would have thought that when the first RC-135 arrived at Waddington and before the runway and upgrades were completed that RCs being operated from there would have been taken into account' hence no runway extention!
Comfortably Numb

User avatar
C24
Posts: 3190
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:52 am
Location: In the 51st State of the Union

Re: RAF Mildenhall to close. Lakenheath to get F-35 by 2020

Post by C24 » Sun Mar 05, 2017 12:30 pm

:)

viewtopic.php?f=131&p=879940#p879940

:roll:

Baz1's comment seems sensible to me :)
C24.
493d/48th - Grim Reapers Supporter.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/charlie-two-four/ FuzzyFastjetFotos, incorporating "HazyHelos"
There's no "go-round" in a glider.

page_verify
Posts: 1640
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:19 pm

Re: RAF Mildenhall to close. Lakenheath to get F-35 by 2020

Post by page_verify » Sun Mar 05, 2017 4:14 pm

filmman wrote: however moving USAF housing could be a problem.
I'm not sure that's much of a problem these days as the USAF's housing model has changed a lot in the last decade, very few USAF personnel live in government housing anymore.

violasrbest
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri May 13, 2016 9:32 am
Location: Lakenheath

Re: RAF Mildenhall to close. Lakenheath to get F-35 by 2020

Post by violasrbest » Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:32 am

I know this thread has moved on, but...

Back on page 2 (!) of this thread someone said "I'm Guessing this will increase the Heaths traffic to the point of opening at the weekends when it all happens ?" The March 2017 local monthly newsletter says, "We are also advised that upon intensification of RAF Lakenheath the site will be operating on a 24 hour, 7 days a week schedule." That is a quote by the Lakenheath Parish Council.

User avatar
sschofield
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:06 pm
Location: Macclesfield, Cheshire

Re: RAF Mildenhall to close. Lakenheath to get F-35 by 2020

Post by sschofield » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:07 am

Yep, Bentwaters was scheduled to receive the F-15E's that eventually went to Lakenheath. I think it was only Bentwaters that would have received them and not Woodbridge. The A-10s were due to be retired and the 81st was to be re-equipped with F-15s, although I dont think they ever got as far as designating which squadrons they would go to.

Somewhere along the lines while the work was underway at Bentwaters upgrading the base a decision was made to base the F-15s at Lakenheath. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this decision was a political one heavily influenced by local pressure groups who objected to flight operations from Bentwaters.

If the F-15s had gone to Bentwaters then it would almost certainly have meant the end for Lakenheath!
I would assume Lakenheath was always going to be the base for the F-15s due to the "vaults" for in certain HAS's from the B-61 days (presumably also used by the F-111F's too?) - Not aware of the existence of these at Bentwaters (the A-10's didn't have a nuclear role, did the Phantoms before them?). Curiouser and curiouser... :unsure:

graham luxton
Posts: 1817
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:27 pm

Re: RAF Mildenhall to close. Lakenheath to get F-35 by 2020

Post by graham luxton » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:33 am

sschofield wrote:
Yep, Bentwaters was scheduled to receive the F-15E's that eventually went to Lakenheath. I think it was only Bentwaters that would have received them and not Woodbridge. The A-10s were due to be retired and the 81st was to be re-equipped with F-15s, although I dont think they ever got as far as designating which squadrons they would go to.

Somewhere along the lines while the work was underway at Bentwaters upgrading the base a decision was made to base the F-15s at Lakenheath. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this decision was a political one heavily influenced by local pressure groups who objected to flight operations from Bentwaters.

If the F-15s had gone to Bentwaters then it would almost certainly have meant the end for Lakenheath!
I would assume Lakenheath was always going to be the base for the F-15s due to the "vaults" for in certain HAS's from the B-61 days (presumably also used by the F-111F's too?) - Not aware of the existence of these at Bentwaters (the A-10's didn't have a nuclear role, did the Phantoms before them?). Curiouser and curiouser... :unsure:
Not only did the 81TFW Phantoms have a nuclear role but also the Voodoo's and Thunderstreak's before them - originally open ended Alert Barns at both Bentwaters and Woodbridge were constructed to shelter the a/c assigned to the "Victor" Nuclear Alert Duty. Alert Barns of the same design were also constructed at Lakenheath and Wethersfield.

User avatar
sschofield
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:06 pm
Location: Macclesfield, Cheshire

Re: RAF Mildenhall to close. Lakenheath to get F-35 by 2020

Post by sschofield » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:46 am

Interesting Graham! I was referring specifically to the WS3 vaults built into the floor of a number of the HASs at Lakenheath, like I said, not sure that Bentwaters ever had those? They were completed in the mid-90's, which I think was around the time Bentwaters lost the A-10s anyway?

graham luxton
Posts: 1817
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:27 pm

Re: RAF Mildenhall to close. Lakenheath to get F-35 by 2020

Post by graham luxton » Wed Mar 08, 2017 12:18 pm

sschofield wrote:Interesting Graham! I was referring specifically to the WS3 vaults built into the floor of a number of the HASs at Lakenheath, like I said, not sure that Bentwaters ever had those? They were completed in the mid-90's, which I think was around the time Bentwaters lost the A-10s anyway?
Its an interesting question Stuart. My understanding is, that in a war situation, the A10's would have vacated Bent/Wood and forward deployed into Central Europe leaving space for a/c from the US, with a `Tactical` nuclear role, to occupy the bases. The 3 deployments by 474TFW F-16's to Bentwater's in 1982,'83 and '85 suggest that in a crisis Bentwater's and possibly Woodbridge may have been their forward bases. If this scenario is correct then the modification you are referring to may well have been carried out.

regards,
Graham

User avatar
TankBuster
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:45 am
Location: Colchester

Re: RAF Mildenhall to close. Lakenheath to get F-35 by 2020

Post by TankBuster » Wed Mar 08, 2017 4:31 pm

The eight VA barns at Wethersfield are to this day still in their original condition! I had a look in one of them last year and it still even had the jet exhaust baffles in place at the back of the barn.
It was quite an eerie feeling standing there knowing that the barn once housed an F-100 armed with a nuke!
It was one of those moments where I looked around appreciating the history of the place, knowing what had been there before...and I remember thinking at the time if only walls could talk!

TankBuster
And there's plenty more where that came from!

Reach1985
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:01 pm
Location: Norwich

Re: RAF Mildenhall to close. Lakenheath to get F-35 by 2020

Post by Reach1985 » Wed Mar 08, 2017 6:40 pm

In reply to Graham - yes I believe that was very much the plan for the 'Twin Bases' hence why all the A-10 squadrons had forward operating locations (FOL) in Germany which they would regularly deploy too. That would have allowed those bases and additionally places like Wethersfield and Sculthorpe to receive assets from CONUS and if I'm not mistaken I think Boscombe Down - and probably others. Had push come to shove I imagine every possible bit of concrete would have been used in some way before it all got blown to smithereens!

welshandy
Posts: 3025
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:44 pm
Location: Bewdley opposite the SVR

Re: RAF Mildenhall to close. Lakenheath to get F-35 by 2020

Post by welshandy » Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:50 pm

Reach1985 wrote:In reply to Graham - yes I believe that was very much the plan for the 'Twin Bases' hence why all the A-10 squadrons had forward operating locations (FOL) in Germany which they would regularly deploy too. That would have allowed those bases and additionally places like Wethersfield and Sculthorpe to receive assets from CONUS and if I'm not mistaken I think Boscombe Down - and probably others. Had push come to shove I imagine every possible bit of concrete would have been used in some way before it all got blown to smithereens!
Some of the Literature I have of that time says that the plan was SAC FB-111's would have gone to Boscombe Down(HAS's built for them), Bentwaters/Woodbridge would have had CONUS F16's . Also US based "Lizard Scheme" A10's would back up the 81st, 4TFW(SJ) F4E's were "Dual based" with Ramstein . How much would actually get here before the Warsaw Pact & NATO started throwing "Buckets of instant Sunshine" at each other

User avatar
TankBuster
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:45 am
Location: Colchester

Re: RAF Mildenhall to close. Lakenheath to get F-35 by 2020

Post by TankBuster » Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:22 pm

Yes, the 81st A-10s would have deployed to four forward operating locations in Germany... Sembach, Leipheim, Ahlhorn, Norvenich. I'm pretty sure that out of the six A-10 squadrons assigned to the 81st TFW there would always be two already deployed at the FOL's in Germany at any one time, and this was done on a rotational basis leaving the other four squadrons back in the UK.

It is widely believed that Bentwaters housed an enormous stockpile of NATO nuclear weapons, which would at the time have seemed quite strange considering that the A-10 couldn't carry them, but then as we now know the nukes would have been loaded onto F-16s which would have occupied Bentwaters after the A-10's had moved into Germany when things went 'Hot'.

Overall, it seems that Bentwaters and Woodbridge were just a huge maintenance and training hub for the A-10s because no combat missions would have ever been launched by the A-10s from those bases in the event of war.

TankBuster
And there's plenty more where that came from!

Locked

Return to “The Fighter Control Mess”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BlackDragonU2, Eccleshare1, Jaymer15, np1991 and 51 guests